Re: Rough consensus? #425 3.5

On 25 jan 2005, at 08.33, Margaret Wasserman wrote:

> At 7:54 AM -0500 1/25/05, avri(_at_)psg(_dot_)com wrote:
> > in (2) I think that the review request need to be addressed to the 
> > chair of the respective body.  I think the language of 2026 can be 
> > adapted as to contents.
> Yes, I agree.  That is what I included in my proposed wording (lo 
> these many moons ago), but would also accept other alternatives, as 
> long as it is clear when someone would send a review request and it is 
> clear who is responsible for making sure that it is considered.
I think that the Chair is always ultimately responsible for seeing to 
it that the work of the IAOC, or the IAB or IESG for that matter, gets 
done.
> > in (5), I think the appeals should have the full chain of appeals. I 
> > know 'at least one level' does include the chain, but I think it is 
> > important to be able to appeal all the way to the ISOC BoT.
> Why do you think so?  If it is the ISOC BoT that you want in the loop 
> specifically, I suppose that the first level could go there...   It 
> seems to me that multi-level appeals in the IETF have not worked very 
> well...
I think the multi level escalation works by making sure that the 
correct level of the organizational layering gets to handle the review. 
 It would be impossible, or at least very complex to say, reviews for 
topic X go to the IAB while reviews for y go to the the IESG and for Z 
to the ISOC BoT.  And while I think that the ISOC BoT is the reviewer 
of last resort (as they are today for process issues), I don't believe 
they necessarily need to be the reviewer of first resort.
If multi-level reviews are not working well, I think this is a 
different problem to be explored separately, but my view is that the 
IAOC should be slipped into the processes in as compatible a method as 
possible, and I think that following the same escalation procedures as 
are currently in existence is an appropriate approach.
> > in (6), I agree that decisions that involve contractual obligations 
> > mustn't be overturned, but I have a problem with saying that there 
> > are no decisions that can be overturned.
> So, how would you make the distinction?  One of the reasons why I'd 
> rather see no decisions subject to being overturned is that I don't 
> want the IAOC to have an incentive to hide their contract or hiring 
> plans from us until after they are signed (and can't be overturned).
I think it is relatively easy to distinguish a contractual obligation 
from a decision that is not contractual, there is a contract.
Now you bring up a good point, what if the IAC uses that as a loophole, 
and make a decision to not be transparent about contractual plans so 
that their decisions cannot be altered.  This would certainly, to my 
mind, qualify as a decision where a successful appeal would force a 
change.  I can imagine many other decision that they could make that 
might also be subject to revision.
My problem with making all decisions unchangeable is that it makes 
appeals toothless, they never can have any real effect.  And I believe 
that this is almost, but not quite, as bad as not having an appeals 
process as it leave no recourse other then recall or public discontent.
a.


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf